Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

TEK180 Material handling and production flow, TEK180

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-10-25 - 2010-11-08
Antal svar: 35
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 62%
Kontaktperson: Christian Finnsgård»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers
Klass: Övriga
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp

The course

1. How does the course fit into your Master program?

Please indicate your program and motivate if you wish.

35 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
1 2%
18 51%
15 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.34

- Think that such a course provides important knowledge to have for SCM students. » (4)
- SCM» (4)
- Supply Chain Management» (4)
- SCM» (4)
- Production Engineering» (4)
- MSc in SCM, the course fits well into the program and I would recommend this as a compulsory course for Supply Chain students.» (5)
- I gives a good insight into how a certain node works and should be designed within the supply chain. I"m from SCM program» (5)
- good, production engineering» (5)

2. Grade the course as a whole

35 svarande

1 2%
1 2%
7 20%
23 65%
3 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.74

- Too much to do in this course. You only do things because you have to. There is no time to learn anything. You have to skip some parts otherwise it is worthless» (1)
- I wish we had more examples out of car industry. also, more lectures about facts or basic principles were needed in some areas to support the case study. » (3)
- The course structure gets a little lost at some point and makes it hard to follow but on the overall a really good course.» (4)
- I found the visit at Volvo very intersting but should combine it with the case instead of the VSM exercise which felt very unnecessary.» (4)
- Seminars were really good!» (4)
- Focused only on automotive industry» (4)
- Very good, although to point out some negatives the lecture by Nonås needs to be reviewed, it did not feel as it fitted in well with the course, and the lecture was not inspiring resulting in that more than half of the people attending left after the first half. The other part that was not very good was the VSM task, the task in itself is a good one, although the structure of it was not very good, there was not enough time and the instructions was lacking. My recommendation would be to study a much smaller part of the stream for each team and then compile this together with the other groups maps so that the class as a whole create one more detailed VSM. Also when it comes to the CSS cases it would be nice with more feedback and not just ambitious as a comment, also better instructions if you want quantitative analysis or qualitative discussions on the theory.» (5)

3. How did the course administration work (web, mail, handouts etc)?

35 svarande

0 0%
2 5%
12 34%
13 37%
8 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- There were several different schedules, timeedit, course homepage and in the syllabus, keep one schedule and state clearly which one is supposed to be correct.» (3)
- A tip would be to use folders in the hand-out section. Either by lecture week or some other cathegory like lecture/extercise/case etc.» (3)
- Late responses sometimes» (3)
- Since there are a lot to do the correction of the handins takes quite much time» (3)
- The handouts page could have been divided into sections to make it easier» (3)
- Some problems with seminars answers. » (3)
- Nobody answered mails» (3)
- Studentportal problems» (4)
- Sometimes a bit slow with giving out reading material for seminars and opening hand-ins on the site for improved seminars.» (4)
- It would be better to have the slides, even that of the guest lectures, in advanced. Sometime there was a delay in answering to the mails.» (4)
- Quite good administration.» (4)
- A bit slow with feedback on the handins/seminares» (4)
- Very good» (5)

4. How did you perceive the reception and availability from the course representatives (Lars and Christian)

34 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
7 20%
15 44%
11 32%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- I two times sent e-mails to Lars with questions regarding the cases without any response. I find this unacceptable. » (2)
- Some supervision time would be great concerning case studies» (3)
- Due to the high amount of case work it would have preferable to have assigned supervision time for students.» (3)
- Sometimes was hard to meet them.» (3)
- Both of you where really good» (4)
- Nobody answered mails» (4)
- Always easy to contact and quick answers» (5)
- very good» (5)

5. How was the total workload in the course?

35 svarande

Very low»0 0%
Low»2 5%
OK»13 37%
High»14 40%
Very high»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- To me it was quite unclear how much effort was needed to pass for each step of the course.» (Low)
- Sure it was a higher workload than in many other courses, but this is more a criticism to other courses, I felt I learnt a lot and would not want less workload. The seminars have been valuable to learn the content although I feel that the questions has sometimes been more of a fact than discussion type, maybe more questions for comparison or that students themself have to prepare some discussion question for the seminars and then you can keep more fact based questions for the hand in.» (OK)
- Skip the Value-stream mapping for next year.» (High)
- To much during during week 2-4» (Very high)
- You need to skip some parts. It was a very very big workload. Needed to skip lectures on other courses to be able to make everything in this course.» (Very high)
- Due to the high amount of hand-ins. » (Very high)

6. Would you recommend this course to other students?

35 svarande

Absolutely not»0 0%
Probably not»2 5%
Maybe»5 14%
Probably»13 37%
Absolutely»15 42%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

- Because it takes to much time and you still do not learn anything cause you have no time to think about everything. YOu just do it.» (Probably not)
- good sum-up/introduction of management track in production engineering mastersprogramme» (Absolutely)
- Especially for those who want to work in the automotive sector» (Absolutely)

7. What was good about the course?

- Interesting topics.»
- The overall learning scope. Good level of detail and a good broad. The case presentation form. Really good to discuss answers instead of listening to 10 groups work over and over in a regular presentation. »
- Practical, relevant to production, holistic view»
- Literature seminars, very good way to learn and reflect.»
- I love the case study!»
- Hands-on, practical approach»
- Some excellent guest lectures (especially H&M) and a great lecture about kits from Christian was the highpoints. Seminars are a fantastic way of learning, make sure you keep them. perhaps look over some of the questions tho.»
- The subject and the information we got was interesting. the case study really helped to understand the course better.»
- The case was interesting»
- I am a student in the Production Engineering program and I think that this course should be mandatory in our program. I liked the philosophy with the case study, it is effective to go through the literature throughout the course to be able to participate in the group work. We had interesting discussions in the seminars that helped as well.»
- Literature seminars, both the home assignement and the grupo discussion, were very useful.»
- some of the guest lectures as well as the subject was interesting as a whole»
- I liked the contribution of quest lecturers. Case studies were also good. »
- The practical emphasis, it is easiest to learn and really understand concepts by applying them. High level of interaction between students and teachers. Very nice to have a lecture from a different industry then commonly, i.e. H&M online store, since it confirmed that what we are learning is or can be applied everywhere. Good to get feed-back on handins, that is not very common but very valuable.»
- study visits»
- Good structure and case that have some conection with the reality.»
- Seminars are good, the assignments where also good and had to make you think since data ofcourse allways are missing.»
- Content»
- Presented production in a very hands-on way. Many other lectures on production are very visionary and theoretical.»
- The case and the following discussions were really good»
- Case studies, comapny visit, work in the group»
- Feedback in cases, discussions about the cases and discussion at the seminars.»
- Hand ins every week made you learn a lot along the way so to say instead of having an exam in the end.»
- Overall satisfied. Many good lectures, also liked the litterature seminars even though the discussions did not always reach any higher level.»

8. What was bad about the course and needs to be improved? Any suggestions on what and how to improve are appreciated.

- Very unclear what you actually need to do to pass.»
- I think the case presentation can be improved even more. Make sure that the topics chosen in the discussing got enough time to be discussed. And would also be good with a short suggestion from Lars and Christian how they would have solved/or what methods they would have used. »
- The workload during the course»
- The company visits, felt like we got the task to do the VSM and we didn"t have the pre requisitions to do it good. Unclear when the process started and what to really put in the map (i was at Elanders). It would be better if the VSM was a part of the sub-cases instead and the company visits more of a learning and understanding experience. I felt like it took away the "fun" with company visits. If we were to do the VSM in a good way, we should get to spend more time at the companies.»
- it seems that the course is a bit unstructured. VSM is very useful and powerful tool but there was no lecture to teach it and suddenly we had to visit Volvo and prepare a report. When there wasn"t good input, bad output (reports) could be expected.»
- Too many compulsory parts to attend, drop a few of those.»
- More examples out of car industry is really missing like the lecture we had about H&M. It provides us a broader knowledge and open up new ways of thinking about what we learnt. about VSM exercise, we were in harsh because we had another hand-in at the same time in this course. Also,it was not covered in lectures well.»
- The workload. Skip some parts. Skip the VSM it is just to much, also some of the other stuff. Maybe not all lectures should be compulsory becuase some of them where not very good. Just wasting my time.»
- It was really hard to get the read thread through the course. I was confused with all these guest lectures and wasn"t sure where the focus was supposed to be since we don"t have a book with all the literature. Moreover, it was sometimes difficult to be theoretical because many of the guest lectures where only practical and I sometimes had the feeling that it was some general knowledge. Moreover, the VSM was too much, doing it with the case and the seminars. Also, a case guidance would have been helpful like we have had in other courses. »
- Maybe scheduled times for guidance for the subcase. That the lectures are more in accordance with the case and offers more input to the case, since there is a variety in knowledge concerning on how to solve the cases. Moreover I found it bad that it seemed that the lecturers assumed that all had taken the lean course, which wasn"t a prerequisite for chosing the course.»
- We were sometimes missing the chance of supervision about cases. Also the case data was little bit unclear. »
- Would be good to have a clearer structure of the course to begin with. Although a course with practical focus, it would be good to have more fixed literature as a theoretical back-up, especially for those not very familiar with the subject. The articles and book used for seminar were not all so that one could rely on them. »
- Better assignment descriptions.»
- To much to read for the seminars, resulting in that you had to hand in a bad work. A bit less pages would have the students going deeper in the text and given a better understanding.»
- Some guest lectures could be improved in terms of presentation technique and content (Nonås, Blom and Wigerfeldt).»
- Focussed only on automotive,maybe thats a limitation of this course»
- The project covering the course is a really good idea. However, I believe that the project should be graded instead of an exam in the end so that more effort is put into the project. The VSM excersise felt like it was just pushed into the course. VSM is really important to the course but the way it was handled did not contribute to the learning.»
- Examples mostly from automotive, »
- Feedback could be more elborate»
- The project was really good, but I think that people would put more effort in it if it was graded. The idea is good, but the students could be awarded something more than "passed. This would increase the quality on the projects.»
- The questions to answer before the seminars could have been more connected to the articles and book.»
- The value stream mapping case was terrible. Bad instructions before going to Volvo made it hard to collect necessary data. All information given concerning the VSM was lacking.»
- Lectures should focus on other indeustries (food industry for example). Examples from automotive should be focused also on other car manufactures (volvo and Japanese brands it is not enough)»

9. What should be changed in the course?

- Hand out the lectures in ppt format as the pdf do not show everything when you have several pictures on the same slides in a animation.»
- The number of hand in should be reduced so there is time ti study the material»
- If you have a 1 page maximum rule on the exam, you should have more specific question rather than reasoning questions. So either make less questions and let us write more pages, or ask for more specific things. »
- I suggest better training for VSM.»
- No VSM.»
- The case study was really interesting. However, I think doing all seminars and subcases and also reworks was a huge work load.It was not fair to get just a 3 to pass the course with this work load.I think it is better if you grade the subcases and omit the final exam.»
- I think, getting 3 from the course after all the work that I have spent in the seminars and the case is not enough. However, reading for the literature test was good, I got a better overview over the course and it was an opportunity to sum it all up.»
- Read the answer for Q8»
- Didn"t find the warehouse discussion very valuable. Interesting topic but the lecture didn"t provide much information.»
- I think you can stick with this.»
- See above»
- Maybe how Literature seminars are managed,cannot suggest any change though»
- More info about how to conduct a VSM before having to do one.»
- Project, see point 8.»

10. Do you think that the literature test reflected the contents of the course?

28 svarande

No, it did not»0 0%
Somewhat»4 14%
Adequately»7 25%
To a large extent»12 42%
Yes, it did»5 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- Didn"t take the exam.» (?)
- i did not take it» (?)
- Some of the questions where to open» (Adequately)
- I think the test was good. But can not understand how a question about material flow mapping could be asked when this part of the course was a total mess.» (To a large extent)
- Although some questions was not expressed as clearly as they could have been, in my mind it would benefit everyone if you are more explicit regarding what course material you want us to elaborate on on a question, I know for example by discussions after the test that the question regarding setup was interpreted in different ways. If the questions are more explicit you will get better answers and people will not feel like they missed points just because they interpreted the questions in the wrong way.» (Yes, it did)

The lectures

11. To which extent has the lectures contributed to your learning

35 svarande

Poorly»2 5%
Little»2 5%
Some»7 20%
Large»19 54%
Very large»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- I felt that some "bridging" between the lectures was needed.» (Some)
- I think that the lectures overall has been good, although some of less quality, for example Nonås as previously mentioned, but my main learning of the content has been through the literature seminars.» (Large)

12. Please grade Lars as lecturer

35 svarande

2 5%
0 0%
12 34%
19 54%
2 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Good but sometimes gets a bit carried away into details and lose track. But I really enjoyed his lectures anyway. » (4)
- Good lecturer, and it shows that he have very good knowledge in the field. Sometimes a bit unclear due to language reasons (especially when having discussion regarding the cases in the class). » (4)
- Good. Sometimes felt a bit too colored by his past in the Volvo Uddevalla plant.» (4)

13. Please grade Christian as lecturer

35 svarande

0 0%
0 0%
7 20%
16 45%
12 34%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- Very good, but could work on the attitud which sometimes felt a bit negligently.» (4)
- Very good!! Inspiring lecturer!» (5)

14. What did you think of the lecture by Anna Fredriksson?

30 svarande

0 0%
2 6%
13 43%
11 36%
4 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Can"t remember it..» (?)
- Did miss that one, but heard that people liked it.» (?)
- Couldn"t attend» (?)
- Did not attend» (3)
- Good content although it would be interesting to follow up on the subject with another lecturer who has studied other aspects such as an organizational behaviourist who could address aspects such as relationship and cultural aspects of offshoring/outsourcing. » (4)
- We had her for 1 hour or so but here lecture was good.» (4)
- short but good, she was also good as the seminar leader» (5)

15. What did you think of the guest lecture by Volvo Cars (Henrik Brynzér)?

33 svarande

0 0%
1 3%
14 42%
13 39%
5 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- The lecture itself did not make me that interested, but the slides were good.» (2)
- Some interesting aspects with a good connection to the rest of the course, such as 80% fill rate» (4)

16. What did you think of the guest lecture by Solme (Oskar Ljung)?

33 svarande

1 3%
7 21%
12 36%
11 33%
2 6%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- Can"t remember it.» (?)
- Could not see the meaning of this lecture.» (2)
- It was OK, but the lecture just before Lars already showed the things Oskar spoke about» (3)
- It was mostly like advertising their product (the software).» (3)

17. What did you think of the guest lecture by Tomas Wigerfelt?

33 svarande

1 3%
2 6%
11 33%
13 39%
6 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- dont remember him» (?)
- The assignment he gave during the lecture was hard to understand and get anything out of.» (2)
- Very good lecture and good to have group work for reflection.» (4)

18. What did you think of the guest lecture by Kristian Blom?

34 svarande

1 2%
3 8%
14 41%
12 35%
4 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- I think he got potential to be a good lecturer but seemed completely unprepared.» (2)
- Mostly interesting although the design task for us war poorly prepared.» (3)
- I think warehouse is a broad subject and it was not covered in the lecture well. the lecture didn"t help us for the second subcase that much.» (3)
- interesting» (5)

19. What did you think of the guest lecture by Kathe Nonås?

33 svarande

10 30%
10 30%
5 15%
7 21%
1 3%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- not good at all, » (1)
- I can not remember any lecture being more boring during my master studies than this one. » (1)
- Not inspiring and also the content was not very much inline with the course, was to little talk about how to handle different problems and to much presentation of a project at Kockums karlskrona, we never got into the interesting questions.» (2)
- the subject was very general which can be thought in any courses.» (2)
- I don"t know if it was the subject or the lecturer, but it didn"t find it interesting at all.» (2)
- Maybe too academic, difficult to understand the connection between the discussed theories in the beginning and the case presented later on and reality.» (2)
- heard her before...» (2)

20. What did you think of the guest lecture by McKinsey?

28 svarande

1 3%
2 7%
14 50%
8 28%
3 10%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Was not there» (?)
- I couldn"t attend this lecture.» (?)
- I missed that one» (?)
- Could unfortunately not attend.» (?)
- didn"t attend so i don"t know» (1)
- Did not attend» (3)
- Decent lecture but too much talk about how incredible mckinsey are» (3)
- no handout!» (4)
- good! inspering» (5)

21. What did you think of the guest lecture by Trilogiq (Christian Åslund)?

34 svarande

0 0%
4 11%
16 47%
9 26%
5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- Quite good lecturer but felt a bit strange that he was telling us a lot about lean since that feels more something we should get from the teachers.» (3)

22. What did you think of the guest lecture by HM Online?

35 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
6 17%
15 42%
13 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

- It was very good that we had an example of how to use what we learnt out of car industry.» (4)
- Superb» (5)
- Excellent lecture.» (5)

The seminars

23. Please grade the literature seminars and feel free to comment on them and their role in the course.

35 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
6 17%
17 48%
11 31%

Genomsnitt: 4.08

- You should have a chat with Sverker Alänge. He has a much more interesting setup for literature seminars, where the students come up with the questions for discussion themselves. These questions are then discussed first in a smaller group and subsequently a few are chosen for discussion in the whole literature seminar group.» (2)
- good way to learn» (3)
- For next year please have a little bit more elaborated questions since some of them were probably not carefully prepared.» (3)
- Some where good, some where not. Very much dependant on which students that participated. Some students where way too quiet.» (3)
- Some questions in the seminars what not so much relevant to seminar"s literature. There should be more focus on the lean textbooks» (3)
- Questions could have been more of a discussion type rather than a state some facts type which I felt some of them were.» (4)
- Very good way of learning. However, I would have appreciated if some small general (concluding) comments regarding the questions and there answers were provided after the seminars. » (4)
- I like the format, unfortunately the discussions wasn´,t always the best.» (4)
- I think the seminars really facilitates learning and understanding of the chosen topics.» (5)
- I think some of the articles (even some book chapters) were not suitable for some seminars (except seminar 1 and 4). It would be better to introduce better articles.» (5)
- Very good learning.» (5)
- A very good way to learn!» (5)
- Very good source of learning! It could be good if someone from the teachers was a chairman, just to have people talking and pointing out the important parts.» (5)

24. To which extent has the seminars contributed to your learning

35 svarande

Poorly»0 0%
Little»1 2%
Some»5 14%
Large»16 45%
Very large»13 37%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

25. How much time did you spend on average to prepare for the seminars?

35 svarande

Less than 3 hours»0 0%
3-5 hours»10 28%
5-7 hours»8 22%
7-10 hours»14 40%
more than 10 hours»3 8%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Each of course.» (3-5 hours)
- Including reading.» (7-10 hours)

26. What did you think the seminar leaders?

- They interact just about what is needed.»
- Very good, i had both Lars and Christian»
- Christian is very interesting to listen to, but he talks too much in some cases. Sometimes a good discussion was interrupted by his "andon"-cord for no reason.»
- We got good information in seminars, like a complementary of the course.»
- They were good»
- It was nice that students had to lead the seminars.»
- don"t understand the question»
- Dont" understand this question...»
- The seminars where really interesting. »
- not efective many times»
- Good. Sometimes Lars abrupted too much.»

The cases

27. To which extent has the cases contributed to your learning

35 svarande

Poorly»0 0%
Little»1 2%
Some»8 22%
Large»21 60%
Very large»5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- We had no idea what was the expected outcome, and I felt that that made us do "as little as possible" in order to get a green light.» (Little)
- I was confusing to know how and what theories to apply and to get a holistic picture since the cases were spread over 3 parts. Might be better to keep the order or design but give all information and questions right away and have sub-reports as now. So that people do consider all 3 aspects in design.» (Some)
- in the begining hard to know the detail level...» (Some)
- After finalizing the cases I realize that I learned alot, but I don"t think the grading represents the the amount of work one put in.» (Large)
- The only problem with the case was that in the end of discussion there were too much questions and there was not enough time to cover all of them. I suggest that lecturers in the end cover all important problems like which information is necessary, what should be considered, how to attach the problem, different possible solutions, etc. In the end there was a feeling that the case has not been solved.» (Very large)

28. What did you think about the CSS case 1?

35 svarande

0 0%
1 2%
9 25%
20 57%
5 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- The timing of the lectures and the case did not match and thus the relevant information needed for the case was presented after the work with the case was done.» (3)
- Hard to understand the scope of the different sub cases, sometimes felt like answering the same question twice» (3)
- Alot of stuff was unclear, which should have been known for a real case. Such as weight for an axle , forecast structure etc. » (4)
- helped alot to really understand the concept of takt time and its connection with other parts.» (4)

29. What did you think about the CSS case 2?

35 svarande

0 0%
5 14%
16 45%
13 37%
1 2%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- The timing of the lectures and the case did not match and thus the relevant information needed for the case was presented after the work with the case was done.» (2)
- It was a huge work and we faced lack of knowledge on ourselves about how to do it. It was not supported enough from lectures.» (3)
- Some data was unrealistic» (4)

30. What did you think about the CSS case 3?

34 svarande

0 0%
3 8%
14 41%
13 38%
4 11%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

31. What did you think about the MFM exercise with the case Elanders-Volvo?

34 svarande

5 14%
11 32%
11 32%
5 14%
2 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- very interesting with the visit. » (?)
- This was terrible. At least in my group it felt like noone really had the skill to do a resaonable MFM based on the brief study visit. And as we didnt know what was expected from us at any point we didnt really learn anything either. The only upside was that it was interesting to see Elanders.» (1)
- Seems like something that just was added to the course. Here as well one assumed that everyone had taken the lean course and were familiar with vsm.» (1)
- The worse part of the course.» (1)
- since its hand-in time was the same with subcase2, we couldn"t spend enough time on it.» (2)
- To little information on place and before and after» (2)
- MFM should have been explained better prior to the visit. Also the difference between VSM and MFM.» (2)
- Good with factory visit but way to poor instructions on how to perform the VSM. Interesting case otherwise. Would have been fun to spend more time to go into detail.» (2)
- Was kind of blurry what the task was both at site and afterwards.» (3)
- Hard to gather the needed data» (3)
- No good training about VSM & MFM.» (3)
- I visited Volvo and most of the questions were made in Swedish to the Volvo man and we had to ask for translation. We had the feeling that we missed a lot of interesting information. » (3)
- I think that it is an interesting case but it felt that it was not presented enough (for those not haven taken the lean course) and that it was just too much with all other handins and reworks.» (3)
- Not enough time at Volvo» (3)
- Important to try in practice but hard to enable a good result. The best would have been to make field trips to both Erlanders and Volvo, but understand that this is an issue of resources available» (4)
- With short amount of time i dont think you can do that much.» (4)


32. Comments and other suggestions?

- - Clearer goals. - The course work load seemed low. Make the case(s) into one bigger report (but keep the half way presentations/discussions if you will). You could also base the grading on this. I think this would make the entire course seem much more worthwhile. - Remove or overhaul the Elanders/Volvo disaster.»
- After doing all the hand-ins no-one is satisfied with a 3 for so much work. Therefore it feels that either doing all hand-ins should give a 4 or part of hand-ins should be graded, providing points helping students to get a 4 or 5.»
- Course should not only focus on automotive! In general really good impression! Sollutions of cases could be published on the homepage to see different groups sollutions.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från